Has he always been like that? Yes, he has. Hate to sound like a broken record again, but remember that knee? These nagging pains seem to be nowhere as serious as the knee so he plays on, as he always do. Yet, it's painful nonetheless.

I think the more important thing is that these pains he has, seems to have no specify causes, or causes that he can figure out. Muscle pains here and there, it's not like it's a tendon rapture, or a torn ligament or whatever, which need the stopage to contain damages. So resting to wait for the pain to past, but resting doesn't seem to prevent him from feeling those pains again in the next match, or next tournament.

I know what you may be thinking, or whatever that you are thinking. But I think Gilles is a very practical man, he's in Asia, he may as well just play until he loses, despite the pain.

I am just thinking that to be competitive on the tour you have to be fully fit. It worries me when I read that players feel pain all the time or play on inflammatories for a long period. And I have never been one of those (like others on this forum, mainly on GM) who think that playing through pain is an heroic act. This does not refer to Gilles, it is more of a general comment.

I am just thinking that to be competitive on the tour you have to be fully fit.

Not that I know anything about professional athletes, but it seems to me that they are hardly 100% most of the time. Don't they always say everyone on tour is always hurting here and there, there's a lot of wear and tear in the sports. I read enough about our hockey players that they said getting 100% during season is almost impossible, but they don't stop unless something is about to fall off. Granted, in a team environment, it's harder to stop because of the peer pressure. On the other hand, in individual sports, they stop playing they earn nothing. I don't think they are trying to be heroic, it's just a matter of making a living too. I remembered reading Mannarino's itw 3 years, he suffered the same knee tendon problem as Gilles, and he also just played on. When asked why, he said, if he just stopped to wait for the problem to heal itself, it could take 2 years, and what's he gonna do with 2 years out of play? He has no choice but to play in pain. Well, not saying that's why Gilles' playing with pain, he probably has a little more choice than Adrian. Then again, Gilles seems to get those nagging pains from his neck/back every other week. He probably cannot afford to stop play every other weeks. But anyway, besides Gilles, it does seem a lot of them are doing the same thing. Almagro played with a shoulder problem for a long time this season, I don't know if he actually has that fixed yet, seeing that he can hardly win a match these days, maybe not. I think just a few players can afford to rest whenever they have any problems, Roger, out of necessity since he's not young anymore. He's the only one that comes to mind in fact. And of course he can afford to stop in term of financial concern. But even Roger has to play more this season because of his chasing the #1, I'm sure I remembered he has some losses due to some back pain too.

But anyway, besides Gilles, it does seem a lot of them are doing the same thing.

That's why I get more and more critic about the way the ATP handles professional tennis. There are far too many tournaments.

Do we really need three tourneys in the south of France (Montpellier, Marseille and Nice) when they also have Roland Garros, Bercy and even Metz? Do we need Moscow AND St. Petersburg within a month?

I get your point about players' need to play for money and points. But here we have another problem. The system as it stands now favours the Top 8 to a huge extent with the first round byes in the Masters 1000 which makes it so hard for others to get into this group and forces them to hunt for points all over the world. I really find it remarkable how Tisparevic can play:

Bangkok, Tokio, Shanghai, Vienna, Valencia, Paris and London (likely), that's seven weeks in a row with huge time zones changes and long travels. But I am getting very , sorry for that.

That's why I get more and more critic about the way the ATP handles professional tennis. There are far too many tournaments.

I'm not saying ATP is handling things well in any ways, but more tournaments means more revenue to spread around the players. I think the small tournaments are there for the survival of the lower tiers players. Cutting the number of tournaments probably won't make the season shorter, just makes tournaments quality better as the lower ranks will have a harder time getting into tournaments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Puschkin

I get your point about players' need to play for money and points. But here we have another problem. The system as it stands now favours the Top 8 to a huge extent with the first round byes in the Masters 1000 which makes it so hard for others to get into this group and forces them to hunt for points all over the world. I really find it remarkable how Tisparevic can play:

Bangkok, Tokio, Shanghai, Vienna, Valencia, Paris and London (likely), that's seven weeks in a row with huge time zones changes and long travels. But I am getting very , sorry for that.

I agree, Top 8 has byes, and they has much easier time in early rounds, so it's a double bonus for them. But I do also think they earn their privilege. The ranking system is not perfect, but I think which ever way the ranking system is set up, it will just be shifting the benefit from 1 group to another, it's never gonna be able to be completely balance. And I guess the tour do want to reward the Top 8 players, cause presumably they are the one fans come to see and the longer they stick around the better for the tournament, and the Top players get the rewards in terms of later round bigger prize money. So the ranking system helps them to stick around longer.

Tipsy probably didn't change his schedule from the past. Except in the past, he exited tournaments a lot earlier, so playing 7 consecutive weeks wasn't much a problem. This year, he's protected by the high seeding and has a lot easier time early in tournaments, so suddenly, the schedule is crazy when he managed to go deep every week. Well, very off topic indeed.

I agree, Top 8 has byes, and they has much easier time in early rounds, so it's a double bonus for them.

It also causes the same match-ups all the time. Those ranked 13-16 will always confront one of the Top 4 which makes it horribly difficult for them to improve their rankings. In fact, you should not wish for Gilles to be ranked there. I know what I am talking about.

It also causes the same match-ups all the time. Those ranked 13-16 will always confront one of the Top 4 which makes it horribly difficult for them to improve their rankings. In fact, you should not wish for Gilles to be ranked there. I know what I am talking about.

Are you talking about Richard?
13-16 is 100% sure they will get 1-4 in R16, 17-24 has half a chance of drawing 9-12 in R32 to take their place in next round to avoid Top 4. I suppose you can see it that way.

This year, Gilles lost R2 and R3 twice in slams, granted, he's not healthy in AO and USO, but in any case, Top 4 is not his problems, he'll be so happy to reach the stage to play the Top 4 and I wouldn't mind so much that he loses to them. And I love to see him play them (well, except Murray of course). I think he gets extra incentive to play the Top guys. It's the rounds when he's supposed to beat the lower ranked guy that he played nervous and unsure, those that ranked 15-30. So I guess in that sense, you are right. Maybe he'll be better off at 17-24 to get 9-16 in R32, he'll be the underdog and maybe then he'll play better and won't choke. Well, thanks, you just make me feel better that he slipping away from Top 16 .

But anyway, I don't mind the same match up every time. The opposite will be the scenario of WTA , and needless to say, I'm not a fan.

I don't think you will say that if Gilles would draw Nadal in all clay tourneys. Really 12-16 can be a curse.

From my point of view, I don't mind if Gilles plays Nadal even if I know he's going to lose because the matches are entertaining and Gilles usually plays well. Against Murray, it's always a mess no matter what

I understand what you're saying about the 13-16 though, it does seem kind of strange that they are locked in against 1-4. Does the number one player really need the advantage of avoiding 9-12? In my opinion, there's usually little to no difference in talent of the players between 9-16 in the rankings.

Anyway, for me it's good to hear he's not hurt. I think Dolgopolov probably presents the same problems as Murray. The slicing and no pace shots would drive Gilles crazy. Hope he avoids him in the future.

I don't think you will say that if Gilles would draw Nadal in all clay tourneys. Really 12-16 can be a curse.

I thought he played great against Rafa in Monte Carlo, and he didn't win a set off him. Nonetheless, it was great.

If he draws Nadal in all clay tournaments, then it's bad luck. But in a non-slam clay tournament, there's only 1-16 seeds. If he's outside 16, then he could get Nadal on R1, or R2 (if there's a bye) instead of R16. So how's it better than seeding 12-16?